#Washington, Benghazi, and the EuroMed (Part 2) Clifford Kiracofe

 
President Obama and his administration have handled the Libya Crisis appropriately and effectively to date.  Hopefully, in the coming days, the US will be in a position to hand off various responsibilities to coalition partners.

America’s involvement in the present coalition was requested by representatives of the Libyan people, by the Arab League, and by the United Nations.  There was strong bipartisan support in the US Congress to call on the UN to authorize a no-fly zone and to protect the Libyan people from barbaric attack by an evil regime.

 

Logically, a UN authorized no-fly zone would require the unique capabilities of the United States in the early stage.  Secretary of Defense Gates made it crystal clear to the American public and to the world that a no-fly zone would require substantial military activity to prepare.  The security of the no-fly mission depends on the comprehensive and effective suppression of anti-air missile, radar, and related systems controlled by the Qaddhafi regime.   

A key element of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was the provision for the protection of civilian populations under savage and relentless attack by the Qaddhafi regime.  The regime uses foreign mercenaries from Sub-Saharan Africa in its systematic campaign of terror and destruction.  The protection of civilian populations, under these circumstances of savage attack, requires suppression of the regime’s armor, artillery, and ground forces.

The UN arms embargo applies specifically to the Qaddhafi regime and not to the pro-democracy government currently based in Benghazi, as some legal specialists have pointed out.

The UN resolution excludes any “occupation” of the country by foreign forces.  However, the language does not exclude the use of temporary forces on the ground.

As to the NATO role, it may well be best to tap that organization’s capabilities but to handle the crisis through a coalition steering committee.  A purely NATO role could be used against the coalition by anti-Western and extremist propagandists.  Also, some Arab states may find this uncomfortable politically as has Turkey already.

President Obama was criticized for going too slowly.  But such criticism ignores the need for appropriate military and diplomatic preparation.

Our various naval and air assets had to be in place and our diplomacy had to help forge a viable coalition to carry out a humanitarian mission duly authorized by the UN.  Pursuant to such coalition diplomacy extraordinary effort had to be made to secure proper endorsement from appropriate regional organizations such as the Arab League and the African Union.  On the military side, careful coordination was essential.

The world had to await the formation of a provisional government, the National Council, at Benghazi.  This was then followed by the March 12 Arab League resolution which led to the UN action.

Some members of Congress are now engaged in posturing over the President’s actions and constitutional issues. 

The War Powers Act was duly passed in 1973 and Congress then had to override President Nixon’s veto.  Congress has had almost four decades now to work its will with regard to this legislation and any further legislation it feels necessary.

Did Congress call for a formal declaration of war in the First Iraq War?  In the Second Iraq War? No and no.

A resolution to authorize the President to use force was the legislative method used for the Iraq Wars.  Of course, this shifts the burden onto the president and the politicians can then attempt to assign blame to the president and not themselves if things go awry.

Whether such resolutions are constitutional or not is another question.

Some politicians now concerned about constitutional matters were fully supportive of the First and Second Iraq Wars and the legislative procedures used then.  About two-thirds of the Senate and House voted for such resolutions supporting the unnecessary and ill-fated Second Iraq War.

If, by now, Congress believes more work is needed on war powers, then it is certainly within the right of Congress to hold broad and searching public hearings on the matter.  After such hearings, Congress may or may not wish to amend existing law. 

The United States have been engaged in the Mediterranean region since the late 18^th century.  Our former “Mediterranean Squadron” was established out there in 1801.  Operation TORCH in World War II was a monumental undertaking.  After World War II, our naval presence was termed “Naval Forces Mediterranean” and then “Sixth Fleet”.  Promoting peace, commerce, and security in the Mediterranean region is a national interest as old as our Republic.

 

Comments

[William R. Cumming]

So is this history, analysis or argumentation?
Remember I was for this intervention but also for crossing all "T's" and "I's"! There are complex but important reasons for doing so!
Professor Kiracofe it would be helpful if you or someone could provide a link to the final final version of the UN Resolution? And the text of the notification of entering into hostilities sent by the WH to Congress as called for by the War Powers Statute? Thanks in advance!

[jonst]

You conclude that the US has "effectively" handled this crisis so far? I profoundly disagree.

As to the authorization to go to war in Iraq 1 and Iraq 2.....you compare, as far as I can tell, one congressional briefing, of who I don't know, as equal to the debates that went on before Iraq 1 and Iraq 2? Don't get me wrong, I think it was unconstitutional to go to war in both those circumstances. But at least there was a chance for a real debate. The parties involved may have been too gutless to have a real debate. That is a whole nother thing, as they say. But they had their chances. Not here.

Look, if the reports on the ground can be believed, big "if", I grant you....MQ is still in power, still attacking civilian cites, and still commanding his forces. While we hear reports of the US decreasing its role in the action? That situation makes sense to you?

[William R. Cumming]

Jonst! None but the Brave! A number of US Senators that opposed Desert Storm and Desert Shield in 1990-91 lost their next election. I believe SAM NUNN was one.

[Clifford Kiracofe]

WRC,
American prose.
Google to find at the UN website. They do have a website with extensive materials and data.

Citation is "S/RES/1973 (2011)" of 17 March 2011. etc.

jonst,

As I said, if Congress has problems with the War Powers legislation of 1973, it has had four decades to do something about it. It has not.

I did not compare any hearings. Arguably, Congress failed to exercise properly its oversight authority in the present Libya Crisis by NOT convening quickly and appropriately a full range of hearings: Foreign Relations, Armed Services, Intelligence.

The Administration has made it quite clear that the overall mission required a prominent US effort out front owing to our unique capabilities for same. Then, we can hand over responsibilities to others in the coaliton.

I opposed Little Bush's Iraq War 2 and I also opposed Obama's unnecessary escalation of the Afghanistan War. BOTH political parties are to blame for the general mess we have fallen into.

[joseph Moroco]

"There was strong bipartisan support in the US Congress to call on the UN to authorize a no-fly zone and to protect the Libyan people from barbaric attack by an evil regime."

I am looking through a copy of our constitution. Help me someone, I don't see where it says

No no-fly zone will be undertaken without a report of strong bi-partisan support in the media. If such support is noted, the president need not consult nor ask for congressional support."

I do see some silly stuff about Congress declaring war.

[The beaver]

@ WRC

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/110317_UNSC%20Libya%20resolution%20final.pdf

or else go on the following site and check half-way for the UN Document:
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/site/c.glKWLeMTIsG/b.6621881/k.63C4/Update_Report_No_1brLibyabr14_March_2011.htm

[jonst]

WRC,

Hand over "responsibilities" to exactly who?

[William R. Cumming]

Thanks Professor Kiracofe!

[Clifford Kiracofe]

jonst,

This is a key question. The way the situation seems to be developing right now is:
1) NATO will play a technical military coordinating role
2) Some form of coalition committee will be established to handle the political dimension of decisionmaking to include humanitarian relief.
3) A meeting in London is slated for Tuesday 29th to work out details of the organization of the coalition effort. So far: "Britain, France, the US, Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Romania, and Spain. Qatar and the UAE, joined possibly by Kuwait and Jordan, with representatives from the Arab League and African nations will also be invited to cement a regional alliance."

The politics are complex because of the grave mistake made by little Bush and his Iraq War which Congress was gung-ho for. This has caused the US massive loss of credibility in the Arab and Muslim worlds. [not to mention in effect handing Iraq over to Iranian influence] We are still bogged down there.

NATO is not perceived well by the Arab and Muslim worlds given the Afghanistan mess (partly Obama's own doing).

Thus, a key issue for the White House (and European partners) is to include Arab states particularly so as to prevent Arab backlash based on the Iraq crusade of Little Bush and NATO's Afghanistan mess.

The White House must without unnecessary delay step into the background for a supporting role to the overall coalition as promised. The President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense have all stated this is our policy and we shall see in a few days.

[jonst]

CK,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. We must agree to disagree. Respectfully. First off...NATO will do little here. Germany, Turkey, and France, the latter for their own reasons, are not on board. NATO is crippled in this and it is an illusion to think you can get them into a 'hot' situation. A cold one. Maybe. But only maybe. But not a hot one, or anything near a hot one.

Double that for the Arabs 'leaders'. They are caught up in existential battles of their own. They have precious little credibility in their own people eyes. And they won't get any more by joining what Turkey has hinted at is a "crusade".

The time for illusions, illusions in Iraq, illusions in Afghan/Pak, illusions about Israel, illusions about old allies in the ME, illusions about how much a military can take before it breaks, is fast coming to an end.

Obama has set upon a course that I suspect he has no stomach for. His Sec of Def, and Chairman of the JCS may very well be against this action. The American people are tired of this stuff.

Europeans and Americans have deep domestic problems. Profound problems that will cause relatively drastic cuts in their standards of living. The Arab regimes are drowning by the day, fighting for lives.

My two cents, anyway.

[s nadh]

hey joe (moroco). who put that gun in your hand?

the constitution is just a piece of paper, it only counts when you think it has a use.

"Whether such resolutions are constitutional or not is another question."

yes, always, always...

irony free

[William R. Cumming]

Thanks Beaver! A big help.

Jonst! Professor Kiracofe used the phrase "handover" so you will have to have him respond to you but good question IMO!

[William R. Cumming]

Jonst! Pretty much agree with your comments as you can tell from some of my comments on other posts.

That is why perhaps when the air campaign is ended or substantially ended the US should just step back and see what does exactly happen although speculation like yours [with which I agree] may well be accurate.
I would have to defer to others as to the possibility of such a US pause and whether it would lead to a total loss of momentum by the insurgents. difficult line drawing in any event.

[Clifford Kiracofe]

jonst,
We are not that far apart. I agree the American people are fed up with unnecessary foreign crusades such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I am too and I opposed both Iraq War 2 and the Afghanistan escalations.

As most know, the Arab League is a joke in the Arab World. Nonetheless, it is a fig leaf for the present humanitarian UN operation in Libya. Washington needs to have some very frank discussions with so-called Arab "leaders," meaning rulers, as to Libya.

Meanwhile, Q's armor and artillery need to be reduced to the greatest degree possible forthwith. Too much dallying on this.

While there may be activity such as recommended by TTG and Col. Lang going on in the shadows, it is hard to see any results reported in open sources. Thus, one would hope for such assistance sooner rather than later on our part or by others.

One impediment may be the Opposition appeared early on to be adament that "we can do it ourselves" and has been vehement (in public anyways) against the presence of foreign troops, etc. Perhaps they are chastened somewhat in this regard these days.

It seems to me that the White House needs to shift lead responsibilities next week to whatever the coalition agrees to as a political coordinating group. The London meeting of the coalition Tuesday would seem to be a critical meeting in this regard.

Looking toward 2012, I would assume President Obama does not want the US to be left holding the bag on this one. He must be very firm on this point with the coalition and follow through on what he has said in this regard. We have done the initial heavy lifting and now it is time for others take up the burdern. If we have not already, we can insert some "advisers" along TTG's lines if they would be requested and welcomed.

[jonst]

CK,

The fig leaf about the Arab League is designed to fool the American people. It is a psyops program against, us. Paid for by, us. I don't appreciate it.

I could have begrudgingly supported the Col's plan. We would have been out of there by now, had it worked and I think it could have. The Col's plan was, if I recall correctly, take him out with American forces, and get out. But from my perspective, we now have the worst of both worlds.

We are gonna soon find ourselves in the middle of another civil war. At a time when Gaza may be heating up and who knows what is going on in Syria. And how the Syrians will react.

We could find ourselves in the middle of something horrific.

But ok, sometimes that happens to nations.....but what I don't like is the decision making process. We are institutionalizing the by-passing of the Congress, and perhaps, the Cabinet. We are institutionalizing the fooling of the American people, as well. And "fooling" is putting it mildly. Some will rightly say, 'well, what else is new?' But if the Dem who was elected because he opposed the war/and this decision making process is leading the way on this...then you are really going down a road from which there might be no return.

My take any.

And we are wasting money we cannot afford to waste. Somebody has to be the adult in the room...and say, no more. No more Mr World Policeman, come what may.

[William R. Cumming]

Professor Kiracofe and Jonst!

We (the US) is always left holding the bag! Not filthy lucre but something more fragrant.

[Fred]

Jonst,

I believe the 'Col's plan' is not his, but is what posted at the top of the home page of SST.

"We are institutionalizing the by-passing of the Congress, and perhaps, the Cabinet." I think this is already an institution, just go back to Iran-Contra. In a nutshell, in violation of law, Oliver North and party arranged to have Israel send American-made weapons to Iran through an arms dealer named Manucher Ghorbanifar. Hours after receiving the weapons, the Islamic fundamentalist group Islamic Jihad (that later evolved into Hezbollah) released one hostage they had been holding in Lebanon, the Reverend Benjamin Weir. Excess 'profits' from the sale went to the Contras, directly in violation of the Boland Amendment.

Ollie ran for Senate in Virginia (he lost). Elliot Abrams was convicted, then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, subsequently working in George W. Bush's administration. Reagan should have been impeached, he wasn't. This was the real 'Reagan Revolution'. Constitution? Congressional Oversight? Now that there's a democrat in the White House, who knows. If there were another brunette from bimbos-r-us running around in a blue dress, then we'd see an impeachment trial.

[Patrick Lang]

fred

TTG's plan (which I asked him to formulate) could easily be briefed to Congress. I have briefed such plans there. pl

[William R. Cumming]

Actually Congress is not being by-passed just largely lazy people who want to stay in DC and get rich eventually if not already. They (members of Congerss) largely are a reflection of a corrupt society that operates on the basis that they are "owed" and someone else should bear the heavy burdens of "governance"! Definitely too little "gravitas" in the elected sector of a largely corrupt society that by luck survived for 75 years before running on the shoals of reality. History has NOT ended.

[optimax]

fred,
inquiring minds say the evidence this time will be a spot on some man's tie. hey they broke the monica story,

[William R. Cumming]

Hey just heard that NATO is now the lead coordinator! Probably means just a front for the US effort in Libya?
But hey its a start.

[William R. Cumming]

I posted some info on assassination prohibition on
my blog at http://vacationlanegrp.wordpress.com

[Fred]

Col,

Hopefully Congress will ask.

[Clifford Kiracofe]

US and British press not reporting the Mau Mau style mutilation and torture of Libyans by the African mercenaries.

But Le Monde is beginning to report the truth:
http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/03/25/sur-la-route-d-ajdabiya-les-macabres-decouvertes-des-insurges-libyens_1498258_1496980.html#ens_id=1481986

[Fiorangela]

my impression from the beginning was that Arab league's role is to pay the bills.
Call me cynical: US is running out of money and inventory. She looked over the shelves, saw that what she had available to sell was bang-bangs and people to use them. So that is what US sold to the Arab league.
Next problem was, where to arrange delivery of the goods.
Here's where the advertising department came in: calling upon Frank Luntz, the team inserted the words "massacre" and "slaughter" and "civilians" at every possible opportunity, then displayed how US bang bangs can kill machines in order to prevent "slaughter" and "massacre." Upon finding a location where a dispensable region was engaged in an activity that could be air-brushed into looking like "slaughter" and "massacre," a delivery point was decided upon.

(fine print -- there's always fine print you know -- using bang bangs to kill machines occasionally has unintended consequence of killing people, an outcome that is not to be misconstrued as a "massacre" or "slaughter.")
____

About 10 days ago reports surfaced that an Israeli company had hired mercenaries to fight for Qaddafi. Anyone heard more about that?

I speculated at the time that the US inserted a "no ICC prosecution" clause into UNRes 1970 in order to protect ally Israel. (remember in the distant past-- UNRes 1970 was to take Qaddafi to International Criminal Court. Why did that get shot down?)